Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 322 active users here.

Announcements[edit]

Proposals[edit]

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

Help to regain my sanity[edit]

I hereby offer anything within my means, to the successful elimination of the additional empty line created by each click of the [Show preview] button. You may not realize, but each click of this button adds an empty line to the end of the "textarea" text and this drives me "crazy!!!". Five clicks of the [Show preview] button adds five empty lines at the bottom of the text edit area. This problem exists in all Wikisources which use the Proofread module. and I tested this (as a renegade of sorts), at the French Wikisource. So, I know that this issue is not exclusive to English Wikisource, but originates in the Main Proofread module of Wikimedia. Volunteer programmers there overlook this problem as not being important, and simply refuse to correct it because they are programmers and not proofreaders.

So, Please support this request to help me proofread and avoid mental health issues. . . . Thanks for your support. — Ineuw talk 05:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


Open ticket 188844 (created by Ineuw) presumably refers? 114.73.248.245 05:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Adapting Template:pd/1996 or a new template[edit]

As per previous conversation started by Prosfilaes, from next year US-published works published in 1923 will be out of copyright, and progressively year by year others will follow. We need to start working on whether we will adapt Template:pd/1996 to have wording that says that the work is out of copyright, and reconfigure that template to set triggers. Or whether we are going to implement a new template for post 1922 works. (Full coverage at copyright tags.) — billinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't the 1996-series of template primarily apply to works published outside the US? For works inside the US, we've been using the 1923-series of templates, and I would assume that it's the 1923-series that would need to be adapted to accommodate US-published works from 1923. It would be odd to have "published before 1923" to be a reason a work is in PD, if works published before 1924 is the actual set of works in PD. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that the pd/1996 has been non-US first publications to this point, and there would be complications in updating the template. Template:pd/1923 is set, and incrementing Template:PD/19xx is possible, though becomes a lot of templates. It is why I brought up the issue as we have to get the wording right, and look to the easiest means to progress through the years. As 1977 is the next US copyright milestone, maybe it is something like pd/1978 with both a year of birth AND year of publishing as parameters, where year of publishing flicks between copyright and not copyright.

billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Let us keep watching for the rest of 2018 to be sure that the US copyright term is not extended. Then I may want to introduce "PD-pub-95" to mean "public domain for being published more than 95 years ago. Renaming Pd/1923 will probably be too disruptive, so making a new template may be better.--Jusjih (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not going to happen, and part of the reason it's not going to happen is because we are going to rip the hell out of Congress if they try. Being able to say that are already preparing for this change will only help our case. And when the ball drops in New York, I will be uploading 1923 works, and will need an appropriate tag.
I'd like a single PD tag that takes publication year and author death year (if known), and it shouldn't mention in the name the exact rules, just applying all the rules that can be deduced clearly from publication year and author death year. Maybe just naming it PD-old would be too much?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I support the single-PD template idea. While it would be rather an in-depth template, I don't think it would be particularly difficult to implement (just a series of if-elsif-else conditions). Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The US Copyright Office already considered the copyright terms too long. Mid-term election will be soon. Template:Pd/1923 is heavily used, so renaming will be harder than adding new template like "PD-pub-95". I will wait for the ball to drop in Times Square.--Jusjih (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looking back at this and thinking again, I think that we should be building a template based on 1978 cutoff, aligning with 1923 and 1996 cutoff usage. We already have our subset of use templates (<1923; 1923<1996) that have a series of #if statements (well #ifexpr) that get implemented. At this stage we need to have some output templates that work in main ns that cover 1923 to 1977 at least
  • published in US between 1923-1963 with notice and renewal
  • published in US between 1964-1977 with notice
  • published outside of US between 1923-1977 (two scenarios)

where we will be incrementing per year. So we just use a #if expression for currentyear - 95 > publicationyear where it shows the PD template when true, and copyright violation when it fails. It is a few years until we need to worry about PD-old for post 1923, so we can work that bit out later. If someone uses this new license for a pre-1923 work, we can simply apply the {{pd/1923}} logic.

We still need a licence to display and the wording to use for US users, bottom half replicates pd/1996.billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

List of broken links from Wikipedia to Wikisource[edit]

In my profile: User:Uziel302 I put a list of 340 broken links from Wikipedia to Wikisource, any help fixing those links is much appreciated. Thanks.Uziel302 (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Some examples:
  1. w:Alabama to Wikisource:Alabama
  2. w:Afghanistan to Wikisource:Afghanistan
  3. w:Azerbaijan to Wikisource:Azerbaijan
  4. w:Ancient_Egypt to Wikisource:Ancient_Egypt
  5. w:Aga_Khan_III to 1922_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Aga_Khan_III
  6. w:Antipope to Dictionary_of_Christian_Biography_and_Literature_to_the_End_of_the_Sixth_Century/Dictionary/Z/Zephyrinus
  7. w:Andrew_Carnegie to 1922_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Carnegie,_Andrew
  8. w:Angles to Ecclesiastical_History_of_the_English_People/Book_2
  9. w:Angles to Historia_Ecclesiastica_gentis_Anglorum_-_Liber_Secundus
  10. w:Angles to The_Ecclesiastical_History_of_the_English_Nation
  11. w:Aswan to Dictionary_of_Greek_and_Roman_Geography/Aswan
  12. w:Andalusia to Estatuto_de_Autonomía_de_Andalucía_2007
  13. w:Beryllium to Beryllium

Thanks, Uziel302 (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There may be some broken links to the Folk-Lore Journal at en.wikipedia, the result of a move with suppressed redirects. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Anything that was Wikisource: namespace is now Portal: ns. To the others, there looks to be a collection of never/wishful, or moved. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking through the list itself, one wonders why it was linked in the first place. Can I suggest for people, that you can use {{wikisource author}} as that was redesigned to utilise Wikidata interwiki links so moved pages are automatically updated. One day I am hoping that Wikipedia is better acclimatised to WD and many of their citation templates will be able to utilise a WD-based citation. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
billinghurst, is there an option to make Wikisource namespace redirected to Portal namespace? Uziel302 (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
No, that would be a cross namespace redirect, and wikis don't do it. Portal is a content namespace, and Wikisource is not. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Just found a better query for these broken links, updated my page to include over 5,000 broken links. Uziel302 (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Bunch of those aren't actually intentional links to Wikisource. They're trying to link to articles about Swedish tv shows, churches, etc. that are prefixed using the abbreviation S:t -- eg. "S:t Mikael" (a tv show). The "s:" prefix is forcing a WS interwiki.
Also this seems like something that they should be fixing up over the the enWP side. I fixed up a bunch where it was a clear "page moved" situation, but it's a thankless task. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
well, i will thank you. a bunch of those are broken DNB links, and missing transcribed articles that were copied there from IA. (i.e. The New International Encyclopædia/Leutze, Emanuel) we did a 12000 article backlog for EB1911 - NIE and Appletons should be easy, not soul crushing at all. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
by the way, some of those may be the em dash versus en dash conflict. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
fyi, (a lot of links are are malformed template syntax) the english admins are mass reverting my attempts to work this backlog, so i leave it to you. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. What changes are getting reverted? --Xover (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
well, for example, this one here [1] apparantly a bot changed the dashes in title to em dashes breaking the link. an attempt to fix it was mass reverted. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Descriptions from Wikidata[edit]

In {{author}}, can we pull |description= from the English-language description in Wikidata, if there is no locally-entered value? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It is my understanding (from an earlier time) that we cannot pull the description from the description field. We decided to not pull the occupation alone and continue to add our own description. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I am sure that's not (or is no longer) the case; no doubt User:Mike Peel can advise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
As Mike is busy, @RexxS: for help, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Try (for George Orwell, Q3335):
  • {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getDescription |qid=Q3335 |wikidata}} -> English author and journalist
Documentation is at Module:WikidataIB #Function getDescription. You could use it in a template something like this:
  • {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getDescription |qid={{{qid|}}} |{{{desc|wikidata}}} }}
That takes optional parameters |qid= and |desc=. If qid is omitted, then it uses the current page; while desc is a local description, which overrides the wikidata. You can supply |desc=none if you want to suppress the description. HTH --RexxS (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I have poked it into template:author/sandbox with an example visible in special:diff/8873313. I haven't done an example where we have no description, and pull from WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Question, do we wish to track where we have used the WD description? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: It is only technically possible, and a fine idea. One of the benefits of having WD fill in blank fields is that the usual names of authors, as given in citations or a user's search, could be spilled out as synonyms of the author page's title here. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Additional comment: What would appear in the description field here that is not data or facts, better served at the respective sister sites? Errant content forking across wikimedia is one of the things WD can resolve, and there is no mechanism to address it here if a description or fact is given without references other than bluff. I would prefer that author pages function as a library index card, merely links to sources with all relevant and labelled data providing disambiguating context for the reader. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The descriptions at Wikidata are sometimes too brief, sometimes overly verbose. We do often want information in the description such as pseudonyms, pen names, other forms of their names, as well in some cases tha names of close colleagues, family members they might be confused with, or information specific to their status as author rather than whatever else they might be known for. I've seen all of these things and more placed in our descriptions, but they are not generally included in the description field at Wikidata. Neither can we wikilink or bold portions of text pulled from the Wikidata description. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I was not very clear on how I think the pages should be configured, it is very different to the individual creation and maintenance of the information by users here. A key point in my upcoming proposals is that labelled data is the solution to untidy workarounds and verbosity. That information is available in other statements at the the WD item with a reference, each site and reader would be able too choose a preference for what is displayed by default and an opportunity to gather or access further information. This allows any whim to be fulfilled by being able to create a query across wikimedia: are there incomplete books here or at commons, who are the coauthors, who are the notable collaborators, what was their birth name …? I cannot think of an example of an author page I created or modified here that required a unique and unreferenced description, only those that required me to manually copy paste data from other sites, — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
And you will still be able to do all of those things. Using Wikidata descriptions would be a mere fallback, for where none is provided locally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There will be some situations where we want more information than is in the description, and there are some authors for whom the description maintained on Wikidata does not meet our needs, but for the majority of situations, I don't see why we wouldn't want to do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did specifically say "...if there is no locally-entered value". But where we currently have none, surely something from Wikidata is an improvement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Natural History of the Nightingale[edit]

Natural History of the Nightingale is ready for a second set of eyes, if anyone has time to kindly check it over. There is a gallery of images of the original publication on the talk page.

It's quite complex, being originally spread over two issues; and a lengthy footnote, that includes a subordinate footnote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason this wasn't worked as a transcription project using those images in an index? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There is potential for improvement, I would be proof reading it now if the images were in index, but if a knowledgeable user with access to hathi trust were to bring it over … Is there a reason why that would not be the simple solution? — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
A perhaps not-so-elegant solution(?): Create a single PDF file using the available images, upload to IA, then Commons &c. Unless IA is *still* not generating DjVu files? Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Another solution is to check if the file is already hosted IA, but I can't do that and type this message. I'm also limping along on an antique that is allergic to pdf, as am I, limping and allergic. It's a quandary … CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. A very enjoyable text, Andy, nicely sourced, transcribed and linked. Any note within a note will resolvable in the Page: namespace, but I'm wondering if another was missed; a dagger † often refers to the second footnote of a page, following the use of an asterisk * — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Couldn't find it at IA searching text. It would be doubtful anyway (wouldn't it?) for both sections to be pieced together at IA unless someone had taken the pains to do so. I am limping, but my computer is not; and neither of us are (is?) allergic. I can't get to it this minute, but maybe later today, unless/until someone else gets to working out a solution. Londonjackbooks (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Is the watermarking problematic? I can't do anything about that for most images. Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Went ahead and uploaded a file to IA. Don't see a 'regular' djvu file derived (forgive my questionable terminology). I have failed in the past to to the pdf to djvu conversion via Commons (or wherever)... If we can get it to Commons, I can set it up here, but confess I have yet to learn how to do match and split (not without an offer to help). Soup sandwich I am :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
DjVu file is now at Commons. Will create an Index here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
What is the point of this, when the work is already proofread and published? I simply asked for someone to "check it over". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't regard it as obligatory, although I presonally have a strong preference for localised images. The few times I proofread something the old way did not encourage me to do it again (most users cut/paste gutenberberg texts), but I have checked thousands of pages since. This includes a couple of small improvements to this text, that I frankly would not have bothered to do if were not for the scan. Secondly, verifiability, crucial to the work we do here, confirming that the text matches makes it easier for London, for example, to find all the things I miss. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Some even {{ls}}eem to be po{{ls}}{{ls}}e{{ls}}{{ls}}ed of a different {{ls}}ong from the re{{ls}}t, and contend with each other with great ardor.
Proof reading is a bit of a challenge, is the preference that the long esses appear in main? — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally preferred not to have long s in mainspace, but it's up to you and the other proofreaders of the work. You can post your discussion and decision here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Er, as I transcribed and proofread the entire work, isn't it up to me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • That is the practice, but the guidelines say that deviation from whatever is deemed 'standard'—by consensus or otherwise—is liable to be challenged by others. I've only done one work with long esses, just one mind, the argument against their display became even more persuasive. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC) P. S. the reason I ask is that I will need to replace the template with the character, which is trivial when compared with your investment in applying them. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • "I will need to replace..." You will? Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
          • The shorter version of the protracted chapter in WS history is that the template does not display in mainspace [!] unless you install a script to show them, although there was an idea to put another option in the sidebar (maybe this has been implemented). In my view the existence of Template:ls is unhelpful, a user is either using it or not; my recommendation is to always check any template documentation. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
            • So, no "need" to remove it, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
              • If that is your decision. Just to be clear, I was not proposing to remove it: "I will need to replace the template with the character …", that is, replace the template with the character itself. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Big untranscluded works[edit]

I am just looking at some of the untranscluded works that we have, and these are some of the biggies that need addressing

Top 5
Migration from text only to image-based

Probably a couple of thousand pages here. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The US Statues are a nightmare because of the weird templates and they use in mainspace. Is there a list of untranscluded works somewhere? I've never found one. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'll take a stab at A General History... so we don't all go stepping on each other. :) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
We have category:Transclusion check required which is proofread works with something needing to be done. There is also the active list generated at toollabs:phetools, though that a listing of untranscluded pages, irrespective of the status of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
i see Confederate Military History is missing 2 volumes, and needs some index love for others. i could scan those volumes at LOC, if there is milhist interest. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
the 2 missing volumes are at hathi https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hx2n9w;view=1up;seq=1 ; https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hx2n9z;view=1up;seq=5 if someone from a US institution could upload to internet archive. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll take care of the A Child's History as well since A General History is completed. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That one's done too. I transcluded it separately from the existing works since the text was actually different, so they weren't from the same edition. Not only that, but the work was actually two volumes, only one of which was The Child's History of England. Either way, it's been transcluded and cleaned up some. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool image[edit]

Proofread heart.jpg

Kudos to our friends on the Polish Wikisource for creating this image! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Support ends for the 2006 wikitext editor[edit]

This toolbar is being removed from MediaWiki.

The 2006 wikitext editor will be officially removed next week, on the normal deployment train (i.e., Wednesday, 24 October 2018 for the Wikisources). This has been discussed since at least 2011, was planned for three different dates in 2017, and is finally happening.

If you are using this toolbar (and most of you aren't), then you will be given no toolbar at all (the 2003 wikitext editor). This default was chosen so that your editing windows will open even faster, and to avoid cluttering the window with the larger toolbars (a particularly important consideration for Wikisource's PagePreviews). Of course, if you decide that you would prefer the 2010 or 2017 wikitext editors (or a gadget like WikEd), then you are free to change your preferences at any time.

Although it is not a very popular script overall, I know that some editors prefer this particular tool. If you are one of its fans, then you might want to know that some long-time editors are talking about re-implementing its best features as a volunteer-supported user script. I believe that any announcements about that project will be made at mw:Contributors/Projects/Removal of the 2006 wikitext editor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see mw:Contributors/Projects/Removal of the 2006 wikitext editor#Alternatives (and perhaps w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Arkanosis#Page, where he talks about changes that you might need to make to some older scripts). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
see also m:Wikimedia_Forum#mw.toolbar_back_or_global_gadget_as_a_replacement apparently, this toolbar change is contentious. Slowking4SvG's revenge 05:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-42[edit]

22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus (Revised Edition, 1831) chapter links[edit]

I changed the fake ToC on the main page to use {{AuxTOC}} and changed the links to point to arabic numeral numbering rather than roman, eg. "Chapter 4" over "Chapter IV". Only issue now is, the old pages are at "Chapter IV" but there are already existing, non-scan-backed pages named with the roman numerals so I am unable to move the page over it (due to lacking permissions). Can someone either move the pages or do a mass edit of the non-scan-backed pages (1-24) to basically contain the content from the recently made pages (I-XXIV) and redirect the roman numeral pages to the arabic numeral ones? -Einstein95 (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Done.— Mpaa (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Patrolling[edit]

Recently I've been noticing IP edits that have been "patrolled" by someone but which included changes to the text so that the Wikisource copy no longer matched the source text.

Wikisource copies must match the source text in matters of spelling. So if someone changes the spellings in a document, and the text no longer matches the source, it is not OK to let that edit stand and mark it as "patrolled". The change should be undone, and a courtesy notice given to the IP (or any editor) regarding Wikisource and fidelity of the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I will typically go down the list of unpatrolled recent changes, marking everything I've seen as patrolled and keeping problem pages open in tabs to be dealt with later as a batch, sometimes after a break. I believe I always get around to it if noone beats me to the punch, the case that prompted this was something I came back to look at just now, to find you addressed it, and then found this. I've tried other ways of doing patrolling, like not marking the edit as patrolled until after it's corrected, but I wasn't able to keep up with the volume of edits any other way. If this is more harm than help, I'll stop patrolling, although I would like to be assured that other people will take care of it. Prosody (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Bilingual book[edit]

One of the books I am considering to upload and proofread is Modern Czech Poetry, ed. Paul Selver, 1920. The book contains a collection of poems of Czech writers in original Czech language on one page and the English translation of the opposite page, see https://archive.org/details/modernczechpoetr00selviala/page/12 . The editor probably wanted to present readers both versions and so it seems to me that we should also present here the English translation together with the original poem. What do you think, is it a good idea or should only the English translation be added to the English Wikisource, as original Czech version belongs to the Czech Wikisource?

If both versions could be added, what would be the best way of their transclusion to the main space, so that they stayed next to each other? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Multilingual works belong at mul:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I have looked at it and it seems to be a strange site to me. The main page is just a disambiguation page referring to various language wikisources including en.ws and many others. After a long time I found a list of languages included at mul and it seems it is intended for some minor languages, but not for English or Czech. I am trying to browse the site but I am completely lost there, unable to find any local rules or whatever. If the work really belongs there, I am afraid it would be completely lost there with a minimal chance to be found by readers (as the main page sends readers somewhere else) and so it seems a loss of time adding it there. So if the Czech text should not be here at en.ws, I will add just the English versions of poems. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: OldWikisource (the multilingual Wikisource) serves several purposes: one is to be the landing page for Wikisource in general, just like how https://wikibooks.org/ introduces Wikibooks and https://wikivoyage.org/ does for Wikivoyage. Another is to hold material for languages with very small literature corpuses (e.g. some dead languages or Papamiento which is generally only spoken and not written). A third is to act like incubator: where a language subdomain can "graduate" to its own site. Finally, it hosts multilingual works, such as s:mul:Index:Festival Romanistica.pdf or s:mul:Hail Mary or s:mul:Index:Boletín RAE VI (1919).djvu or s:mul:Bukvar staroslovenskoga jezika glagolskimi pismeni za čitanje crkvenih knjig. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I see, thanks for the explanation very much, now I understand it better. The biggest problem I see with this site is that it was necessary to explain it at all, as the reader does not get this information on the main page and in fact I did not find it even after quite a long time of searching. I was not able to find any page explaining the system of the site, its rules, anything. As a reader I am directed to various single-language sites and do not get the information that multi-lingual works can be found there and how/where I can find them. So I got the impression that adding there some work is like throwing it into a black hole :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Putting this work at the Multilingual Wikisource would mean that users looking for Czech poetry in English on the English Wikisource would not find it. We need to store works in English on this Wikisource so people looking for works in English can find them. We could have a link from the relevant author pages here to the Multilingual Wikisource, but I don't see what that gains us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: If the work is a collection of single-language works, rather than a single multi-language work, this is frequently handled by splitting the content between enWS and the relevant language WS. For examples, have a look at my laWS user page. — If the text is completely parallel, it may also be acceptable to only transcribe the English content and leave the rest to other editors; see Index:Aida Libretto English.djvu and Index:National anthem act Canada.pdf. — You may also find the templates documented at Template:Iwpage/doc useful. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I see, thanks. I just thought that as the editor of the book wanted to present the English readers the English translation of the poems along with the original text, we could keep the original text too. But if you feel it is better to add only the English text as in your examples, it is fine to me as well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I think it is (always) better to have both the English text (on enWS) and the Czech text (on czWS). You will see that the examples I gave on my laWS user page (especially The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church where the original and translation are presented in parralel) are like this: the English and Latin texts are both present and accounted for. The last two examples were provided because you said "I will add just the English versions of poems". If you are not comfortable working in multiple wikisources, it is completely acceptable for you to only do the English parts and to leave the Czech part for someone else at a future time. For example, I did this with Aida, because I don't speak Italian and was not comfortable trying to work on itWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: You can have a look at this work. Hrishikes (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I don't know if this is the best method for this particular collection. I thought we generally discouraged formatting these works in parallel like this, except where it is clearly inappropriate to separate the original from the translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: As for cs.wikisource: the poems are much older than this bilingual publication, so it would be much better to add them to cs.ws from the original Czech sources (in fact some of them are already there). Besides that, there is no clear consensus on cs.wiki as for using proofreading extension and the index and page namespaces. Inf fact conservative local admins oppose it very much and discourage contributors from using it, and I gave up fighting with them. Another problem is technical: cs wikisource uses a lot of templates which are not compatible with en.wikisource environment. Once I tried to transclude something from there to en.ws and failed for this reason.
So I personally do like the solution suggested by @Hrishikes:. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to exclude part of the work, and would think that can be duplicated at the Czech wiki source. The attempts to avoid this situation just begets problems, and putting it where it won't be seen is unhelpful. Notwithstanding some questionable interpretation of a rule inferred from the historical split of the wikisource library, the complete text can be welcomed at this site; here is a featured text Le Corbeau that displays both languages (having just restored that version from "experiments" and an undiscussed revert). It is preferable that users concern themselves with solutions to matters that have defined and undesirable consequences, Yet again I ask, what are those consequences in this situation? — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, on other Wikisources (at least the French, the Latin, the Breton and the Multilingual - that I know of), we put each parts of a multilingual book in the corresponding Wikisource (with all the templates and tools to make it easy and smooth). Is it not the rules also on the English Wikisource? (if not, it will create problem for bilingual books containing English, like on Le Corbeau where I thought I was applying the usual formatting to only discover afterwards that I was not by Cygnis insignis). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Pagelist checking...[edit]

Category:Index - File to check

Any chance of this being emptied by the end of the year? I'd done a few more, but the remainder are ones I don't necessarily feel happy about doing the page-listing for various reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems[edit]

This work has already been fully transcribed years ago, but there are still many pages that need to be created for individual poems (see red links in the contents). Isn't there an automated way to do this? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The automated way to do it is transclude the entire work to that page. The ToC can then link to the page further down, which is easily done by wrapping the page numbers with the wikicode #170|. If someone then wants to make 170 redirects or versions, that full transclusion need not wait and will still return a search result. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I have done the single-page ones. I did a few a couple of the multi-pages ones but I stopped as I was unsure how to fix <poem> across pages (you can follow my traces in Page ns to see my fix). If someone more familiar with poems could take a look, I appreciate.— Mpaa (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
BTW, djvu page 218 is unreadable. If someone finds a replacement, happy to fix it.— Mpaa (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Sample here of how multi-page <poem> may be achieved. At a basic level the poem extension is almost incompatible with the ProofreadPage extension (the two fight over the implied </div> between the page body and page footer. Neither really wins! The compromise is to put up with the result of transclusion being effectively two <div>s nested inside a third being… sort of acceptable. 114.73.248.245 04:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
i have stopped using poem, and rather use block center, with lots of br line breaks. i find it more stable, if a little more work. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mpaa: I don't know if this is deliberate, but several pages have the character "⋅" in the translator and notes fields of the page header. For a list of affected pages, see Category:Works with non-existent author pages (which flags them as Author:⋅ is not an existing page). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl:, thanks, should be fixed now.— Mpaa (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wow. Thanks everyone, you guys are amazing! ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotated table overlaps text[edit]

At the bottom of Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/772, there appears a table whose contents have been rotated left 90 degrees relative to the text of the page. At least as it is displayed in my browser, however, the rotation has caused the table to cover up the last several lines of text in the paragraph immediately before the table. Assuming that this is not caused by some idiosyncratic behavior of the computer I am using, does anyone know how to prevent the rotated table from covering up the preceding text? Tarmstro99 20:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotation doesn't resize the container, so you have to add a gap above (and below) the table for the long ends to rotate into. If the container is square everything will fit nicely. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It’s odd (to me) that the same problem does not appear at Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/778, which also contains a rotated table but doesn’t (in my browser, at least) appear to overlap the text above and below. Tarmstro99 15:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
That table is only different because 1) it is more square and 2) it has a gap before and after for the long sides to rotate into. If you make it less square (by removing some rows), or if you remove the paragraphs before and after that contain only a single non-breaking space, you will see that it rotates into the text above and below just like the other one. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The observation about the second table being “more square” gave me the idea to add a width parameter to the table on Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/772, which seems to have done the trick (for now, at least; we’ll have to see how it looks when transcluded. :-) Tarmstro99 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Pseudonyms[edit]

I would like to ask the community whether it could be acceptable in some cases to name an author page with the pseudonym of the author instead of his civil name. I believe it could be possible if the author is known almost only by the pseudonym. I have recently founded Author:Petr Bezruč, whose civil name Vladimír Vašek is practically unknown and unused both by readers and literary critics. The same case is Author:Otakar Březina (who probably changed his name because his civil surname sounds obscene to contemporary Czech readers). A short time ago this practice was still accepted by Help:Author pages, but today it was removed by Billinghurst.

In my opinion this makes the author page less comprehensible to readers, because a note about pseudonym written in much smaller font somewhere in the description or note is not the same as the name of the page. I also believe we should follow the same practice as big the libraries do: most links in the authority control call him O. Březina too (including the Library of Congress or Czech National Library ), mentioning his civil name as an alternative. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use either the civil name or the pseudonym (or the religious name or whatever) at the discretion of the page creator. There should be a redirect in place from the other names the author goes by. The notes field of the author header should also specify names the author goes by. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. For some authors, the pseudonym is the name under which the individual is indexed in VIAF, LoC, BNF, GND, etc. and for whom the civil name is almost wholly unknown. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of examples here, where names other than civil names are used: Author:Sri Aurobindo (civil name: Aurobindo Ghosh), Author:Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (civil name: Gadadhar Chattopadhyay), Author:Swami Vivekananda (civil name: Narendranath Dutt), Author:Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar (civil name: Ishwar Chandra Bandyopadhyay), Author:Paramahansa Yogananda (civil name: Mukundalal Ghosh). There are plenty others. This is a time-worn scheme, it is not prudent to discontinue this. We will always find cases where civil names of authors are virtually unknown, except to scholars in the field. Hrishikes (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-43[edit]

23:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Large-scale copying of ancient inscriptions into Wikipedia articles[edit]

There is a discussion going on regarding large-scale copying of the text of ancient inscriptions, and whether this kind of primary source copying is more appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia or Wikisource. Your feedback would be welcome at w:WT:CP#Large-scale copying of ancient inscriptions into articles. Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

e-book reader down loads[edit]

is there interest in providing a "e-book" download option for readers? i see there was previous discussion about selling those,[6] but could we make it easier for readers to download for off line reading? Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

We can barely come to a consensus for how to support mobile users; I don't think we have the raw manpower/wherewithall to support a variety of additional formats. :( --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
if it is an external tool, do not need a consensus. can change interface via phrabricator. it is unclear how hard it is to build a tool. maybe a summer of code could do it. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Most of our templates are not compatible, and any changes to templates would require consensus. We had similar issue with that "book download" functionality. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A wandering student in the Far East vol.1[edit]

I have encountered an issue in the display of CHAPTER II. SHANGHAI TO ICHANG. [7]

On Page:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu/81 there is a Footnote containing a table which spans over onto the following page.

I am unable to make this display correctly. Would someone be able to take a look and correct my formatting error please.

Thanks.

Sp1nd01 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The <ref> tag was in the header and so wasn't transcluding, should be ok now —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! it's displaying correctly now. Sp1nd01 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Difficult to read Latin text[edit]

Can anybody read the text at the top of Page:Bohemia's claim for freedom.djvu/11, please? A better legible version is also at https://archive.org/details/bohemiasclaimfor00proc/page/6 . It seems to me that it starts with the name of Johan Hus, but I am not able to read much more. Or should I add it there as a picture? Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I would put it as a picture, since it's only an image of a mauscript, as evidenced by the way it's cut off at the right margin. If it were transcribed it would need to preserve the abbreviations which can be difficult in Unicode. The full expanded text is "Johannes Hus Magister in Artibus Sacrae theologiae Baccalaureus [studii universitatis] Pragensis Rector et praedicator verbi Jesu Christi in capella S[anctorum]". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, you are probably right with the picture. Thanks for both the transcription and the advice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

{{sp}} vs. {{gesperrt}}[edit]

Time for another template showdown, with two templates with only a difference of 0.05em of spacing. Special mention to {{letter-spacing}} which has no defaults but is marked as for merging with {{sp}}.

Results:

  1. {{sp}}: 8940 pages
  2. {{letter-spacing}}: 1325 pages"
  3. {{gesperrt}}: 1144 pages"

This will be a little more work than a simple redirect unless the 0.05em doesn't matter much. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we should merge the three of them into one.— Mpaa (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of {{textinfo}}?[edit]

When one of the old non-scan-backed works is replaced with a transclusion, should we also be removing the old (no longer accurate) {{textinfo}} on the talk page?

For example, consider Call of the Wild (London). The talk page's text info claims that this is the text from Project Gutenberg, but it's now transcluded from a scan of the original work, so it's not relevant anymore. (And all contributing users can be found in the history anyway.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. If the text is from an original scan, the textinfo cannot give the reader information that it was taken from somewhere else. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-44[edit]

20:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

November's PotM[edit]

Anyone interested, can you please take a look at some items parked at the PotM talk page for November 2018, as well as BWC's remarks in the Option C section for that same month? November is almost here, and it would be great to get some feedback from more people. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Decision time: We need a follow-on work for PotM. There are several options on the table. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Decided. Can someone please create a disambig page for "The War and the Future" before I forget? There are two instances here. I am signing off or I would. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Indic Wikisource Community Consultation 2018[edit]

This Wikisource Meet, described at Meta, is going to be organised in Kolkata on 24-25 Nov., 2018. One member from each Indic Wikisource has been invited. I have been invited to represent English. If the Community desires me to talk specifically about some issue at this Meet, please let me know. Best, Hrishikes (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Non apperance of CharInsert gadget...[edit]

When editing an Index page I do not see the additional toolbar generated for the CharInsert gadget. Can someone give EXACT configuration details to get it working again, thanks? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently under discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Wikitext_editor. I doubt anyone has EXACT configuration details to give you. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-45[edit]

17:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until November 30 to fund both experimental and proven ideas such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through November 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Plainlist does not indent for sub lists..[edit]

The page here has an index with 2 levels of entries Page:Mr. Punch's history of the Great War, Graves, 1919.djvu/330

I could format this using TOCstyle, but that seems like overkill, so I am using plainlist, however currently that just flattens the list down entirely, which is not the desired behaviour.

Is there someone here that can come up with a tweaked CSS class to accommodate a page like this?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Simplify. Don't use a list class at all. It's not necessary for indices. For something like this I usually use poem tags and a simple colon indent for the second level. No need to make it more complex than that. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a list; it should be marked up as a list, not least to improve accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The CSS you need is: style="list-style:none". Eg:
<ul style="list-style:none">
<li>Outer item 1</li>
<li>Outer item 2</li>
<li>
  <ul style="list-style:none">
    <li>Inner item 1</li>
    <li>Inner item 2</li>
  </ul>
</li>
<li>Outer item 3</li>
</ul>
Which renders like:
  • Outer item 1
  • Outer item 2
    • Inner item 1
    • Inner item 2
  • Outer item 3
...Unless I misunderstood what you were looking for? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is essentialy what

could be generating.. The class for plainlist needs a LI->UL->LI rule I think..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

which I don't think it currently has.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently using TOCstyle as I understand it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The actual style for plainlist is
.plainlist ul{line-height:inherit;list-style:none;margin:0}
.plainlist ul li{margin-bottom:0}

which seems to mean every UL is forced to left-hand margin of the DIV, irrespective of it being a "sub" list or not.

MAybe an additional rule such as

.plainlist_i ul li ul{position:relative; list-style:none; margin:1.6em} 

could be considered, so that successive sub-lists can beindented, but I don't think it's complete solution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure you don't need position:relative. I'm also pretty sure you don't need anything more complicated than:
.plainlist ul{ list-style:none; padding-left:0 }
.plainlist li > ul { padding-left:1em; }
Eg. as seen here: [14] --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I upload Research works done in our University here?[edit]

Can I upload research works does by me, my friends and some of my faculty here? If yes, how can I prove that they are public domain if I'm the first person place them on internet and they haven't published them yet. In this way how can they prove that they doesn't have any sort of objections? IM3847 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In general, Wikisource does not accept original works. See Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Works created after 1922:. Analytical and Scientific works can be included if the work has been published following peer review, or if the author or researcher is considered notable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
right - you could prove they are public domain by publishing in an open access journal with a CC0 license. if they are open pre-publication draft of paywall journals, you would then upload them to your website, with the CC0 license. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Some of them are published on our college library site, now can I upload them too?
You'll have to be a bit more specific about what is proposed to be uploaded. Self-publication on a website is not sufficient in itself to merit inclusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've written a research paper on a few Natural disasters in India which contains a few desktop studies. This paper was published in our University Library. No can I upload it to Wikisource? If yes then how? IM3847 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Could you provide a bibliographical citation for the publication discussed? If they are accessible online, could you provide a link to them? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
[15] This is the link of the journal published by my classmate.
I think the main problem with works published in this journal is that the journal states at the bottom of the main page that all rights are reserved. What is more, the guidelines for the submissions of papers require filling and sending Copyright form, which states that "In the case of republication of the whole, part, or parts thereof, in periodicals or reprint publications by a third party, written permission must be obtained from the Editor-in-Chief of IJRET." So you would probably need such a permission stating that the article can be released into public domain. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-46[edit]

19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Books in french for French Wikisource[edit]

Hi,

I am contributing on french wikisource and I would like your help. I can download lots of books from Hathitrust (public domain work) but some books aren't accessible (but they are in the public domain). There are :

  • Labarre - Le chant de la paix, see HT
  • Marseille, porte du sud, see HT
  • Une officine royale de falsifications, see HT
  • Hello-Les Plateaux de la balance, Perrin, 1923, see HT
  • Œuvres complètes / Albert Londres, see HT
  • Poèmes à Lou see HT

Is someone can send me theses books by email ? Thanks ! --Shev123 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Moved from Wikisource:Requested texts--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)